Wait a second: was that Sean Hannity on Fox News? Nope, it was Chris Matthews on MSNBC last night, expressing surprising skepticism over the 9th Circuit’s decision to uphold the stay of President Trump’s executive order on immigration.Matthews made a multi-pronged attack on the ruling.

Matthews suggested political motives on the part of the Court:”so much of this court ruling is based on what they think about Trump.”

He called it “an odd ban on Muslims if it doesn’t include 95% of Muslims.”

Matthews suggested that the ruling would not have gone 3-0 against the order if it had been heard in another [less liberal] Circuit court.

Matthews repeatedly attacked the court’s reliance on the fact that we haven’t been attacked by people from the countries included in the order. He argued that you couldn’t predict the future, pointing out that no one from Egypt had attacked the US before Mohamed Atta did on 9-11, and no one from the West Bank or Jordan before Sirhan Sirhan assassinated RFK.

Matthews was dubious about the court extending equal protection rights to non-Americans who are not in the country.

Concluded Matthews: “I think the courts have gotten into somebody else’s marmalade here. You start talking about policy, and which countries to target, which not to target. These judges don’t have any competence to do that.”

Note: Hardball flashed a chyron showing that Hillary Clinton had triumphantly tweeted “3-0.” When a Politico reporter suggested it wasn’t a political ruling since a George W appointee had gone along with it, Matthews taunted: “so you’re with Hillary on this. You’re with Hillary who says 3-0.”

Comments

Matthews must have read the order. The order is well-thought-out, limited, reasonably tailored to achieve the objectives of a core executive responsibility, and yet flexible so as to avoid unjust results.

It has been my contention since this brouhaha began that only those who had not read the EO, or were so committed to an agenda that they were willing to lie outrageously, could possibly attack it with such vehemence based on such incorrect data. It appears that Mr. Matthews may indeed have read it; now, if he can convince his friends to do the same, perhaps this absurdity can stop.

Trump’s “score” on this is actually 4 – 1. Four leftist hacks in the 9th circuit (one district court judge and three appellate judges) ruled against him, while one federal district court judge in Boston ruled in Trump’s favor.

But we probably shouldn’t expect a woman who lost to Trump 3,084 – 57 (U.S. counties) in the last election to get much correct.

“Matthews repeatedly attacked the court’s reliance on the fact that we haven’t been attacked by people from the countries included in the order.”
_______________________

The court’s reliance on that “fact” deserves to be attacked, because it is a “fact” that is demonstrably false.

The district court asserted, and the 9th circuit appellate judges agreed, that “zero” persons from the 7 listed countries have been arrested in the U.S. for terrorist-related activities.

In fact, at least 60 persons from the 7 countries have been not just arrested, but convicted, of terrorist-related crimes in the U.S. There are also others, including the Somali “refugee” who recently attacked people with a machete at Ohio State while shouting “allahu ackbar,” who were not arrested for their terrorist activities in the U.S., but only because the Somali terrorist had been shot dead by cops in the middle of his terrorist rampage.

I’ve told my acquaintances that liberals would have exploded had judges attempted this kind of mugging on President Obama. I’ll leave it at that, since it appears the Professor has amply addressed the many, many errors of the decision, including the massive seizing of power (using a mere TRO as the vehicle for it) by the 9th Circuit, in a previous post today.

Wouldn’t Alinsky advocate just moving inside the 9th circuit’s OODA loop by issuing a new executive order every day which revokes the prior order and makes some small update? Revoking the prior order would moot any litigation based on it wouldn’t it?

Regardless of what one thinks of Chris Matthews, he is correct here. And, this merely strengthens the point that the courts are acting based upon politics, rather than upon legal standards. Once the courts renounce any semblance of political or ideological impartiality, they lose all power. Now the 9th CA is nothing more than a bunch of political hacks in black robes, who have absolutely NO power to coerce the President or Congress to do anything.

So, Trump wins this round. Sooner or later, the courts are going to have to validate his EO AND his authority, under the law to, to issue it.

If the President doesn’t have the authority to curb immigration from hostile states, who according to the constitution does?

and no… I don’t think the horrors of the foreign places these people are coming from get to play into the courts decision process. There are other ways to deal with getting them safe… gitmo has some empty beds for instance.

Matthews is showing signs that he’s finally recognized the pattern they’re locked in and how bad it is for both the press and the Democrats.

The pattern flows like this:

1) Trump says/does something mild to moderately objectionable

2) The press and Democrats seize upon it and start publicly commenting about it

3) To try and score political points and whip up fear, the press and Democrats EXAGGERATE and LIE about it for edgy sound bytes

4) Trump says they’re lying liars who lie and are just partisan hacks

5) The common people find out about their easily verifiable lies

6) Any objections to what Trump is ACTUALLY doing are lost amidst the lies and defense against the lies

7) Trump support grows

8) Trust of the press falls further

I mean seriously. I don’t know how many times this pattern has to repeat.

Matthews recognizes that this decision by the 9th Circuit is idiotic, devoid of legal reasoning, going to be overturned by the Supreme Court, and that means Trump will have been completely vindicated in criticizing the 9th Circuit as partisan hacks.

This is bad for both the 9th Circuit and the Democrats for them to behave in this blatantly political and partisan a way – and at the end of the day, for what? A temporary stay on a legal EO?

I wonder if the justices realise they have essentially signed their own death warrants? With a failure rate over 80% you would think these clowns would have some understanding of how vulnerable their position is.

But this is the thing about Liberals…they actually have no idea just how terrible bad they really are. So when the 9th Circuit does get broken up in the near future they will be completely caught off guard and totally didn’t see it coming…which will make it even more delicious…those delicious liberal tears 🙂

*SHRUG* the liberal ploy is pretty simple … Oppose everything … Fund raise to support their paid protesters to make it look like Trump support is crumbling … Increase the number of dead on voter rolls …. And with media compliance make it look as though every white house policy is somehow killing dogs … Old ladies and children

Announcement

Support this Blog

One Time Donation

(Any Amount)

Monthly Donation

LIN_SeventhWindow

Newsletter

Morning Insurrection

Get the latest from Legal Insurrection each morning plus exclusive Cyber Insurrection and Author Quick Hits!